add_notify

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects and requirements. The description only says 'Add' and lists parameters; it does not mention that this modifies the animation asset, whether permissions are needed, what happens on failure, or if the operation is reversible. For a mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise, with one clear sentence for purpose and a clean parameter list. Every line adds value without redundancy. It is well-structured and easy to parse, making it efficient for the AI agent.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks essential context for a mutation tool. It doesn't explain whether the asset must be loaded, how the tool interacts with existing notifies on the track, or failure behavior. It also doesn't position itself relative to add_notify_state or add_notify_track. Given 4 required parameters and no annotations, a more complete description is needed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema provides only bare titles (e.g., 'Asset Path'), and the description adds useful context: 'Unreal asset path', 'Notify track name', 'Trigger time in seconds', and an example for notify_class. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage but could be more detailed (e.g., time format or constraints). It meets the minimum expectation but doesn't fully elaborate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action: 'Add a notify to an animation.' It uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('notify' to an 'animation'), making the purpose immediately obvious. The parameter list further clarifies the operation, distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_notify_state or remove_notifies.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., add_notify_state for state notifies). It does not mention prerequisites, such as whether the notify track must already exist, or exclusions (e.g., 'use this for point notifies only'). With multiple related tools, this lack of usage context is a clear gap.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.